In recent days, I've discovered that public sentiment has shifted on Reddit towards viewing both WikiLeaks and 4chan's /pol/ (if not the whole of 4chan) as arms of Russia's propaganda machine. What are people's thoughts on this?

In recent days, I've discovered that public sentiment has shifted on Reddit towards viewing both WikiLeaks and 4chan's /pol/ (if not the whole of 4chan) as arms of Russia's propaganda machine. What are people's thoughts on this?

It's adorable that people get so up in arms about Russia (possibly) manipulating elections around the world when America has been doing it forever.

__________________
Mozz's Van, named after Bulbagardens creditor, was a hidden forum section where staff members could share pictures of their tiny penises and engage in homosex. Sadly, HAVA media, Bulbagardens new corporate overlord, forced it's closure. Can't have porn on a children's website.

/pol/ is probably at least partly a product of the Russian propaganda machine (do note that /pol/ is pretty heavily despised on most other parts of 4chan), but I would think it's less direct Russian interference/influence and more of the fact that /pol/ is basically the loudest echo chamber of all and anything that's screamed even in its direction reverberates for ages. /pol/ users were likely just fed propaganda from other sources and the Internet Hate Machine just did the work for them.

I am not super sure about WikiLeaks. Assange (somewhat ironically?) keeps his cards pretty close to his chest so it's hard to gauge what his alliances are, but I don't know that his leaks if taken as a whole have necessarily been more damning to one particular party over another.

I think it's not remotely a coincidence anymore that WikiLeaks only leaks anything that's pro-Russia, and always leaks stuff from the anti-Russia candidates.

And you know the one leak that was perhaps detrimental to Russia? The one we all forgot about? Yes, I'm talking about the Panama Papers. Wikileaks were up in arms against it. They're not even remotely being subtle.

Also, it was shitty when the US interfered in elections and it's shitty now that Russia is doing so.

Yeah, but still Le Pen won about a third of the vote, and I was just reading an article on the Independent (can't link, phone) that almost half of young (18-25) voters backed Le Pen. Contrast young US and UK voters overwhelming rejection of far right candidates/ideas that ended up winning on the votes of older generations. Realistically Macrons Parliament will most likely render him fairly weak, weakening him severely in five years time when he can't deliver on anything.

Frsnce aren't really being a beacon of hope here, they're just behind the curve. With such a reversal of the age split on the far right compared to other western nations it's hard to be optimistic about their future.

Err, frankly not sure which article you were leading, but the stats I found per the Ipsos exit poll said that about two-thirds of youths 18-25 voted for Macron, which isn't that bad. Also do consider that LePen's economic policies were fairly to the left, and Melenchon won most of the youth vote in the first round.

It doesn't make the numbers that much better, but again, it's not that terrible. There's also the fact that LePen was actually third behind abstentions.

That's been one of their promises from the off, they're pushing it again now they think people will back it. Maybe they should stop ripping the manifesto from 1984.

Nevermind that the way the jihadis were communicating - shooting bullets into walls during Call of Duty - was incredibly sophisticated and way beyond what mass surveillance was capable of detecting. You may have been able to catch it with teams of analysts and code breakers doing targeted surveillance, but the only way to narrow down the targeted surveillance was to know that the player was 1) muslim and 2) an immigrant.

There is going to be a shit ton of bycatch from this, and coupled with the anti-copyright legislation, it sure sounds like those in power want to take control of the internet away from the populace.

BERLIN (AP) — The European Court of Human Rights says an Austrian woman’s conviction for calling the prophet of Islam a pedophile didn’t breach her freedom of speech.

The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled Thursday that Austrian courts had “carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.”

The woman in her late 40s, identified only as E.S., claimed during two public seminars in 2009 that the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to a young girl was akin to “pedophilia.” A Vienna court convicted her in 2011 of disparaging religious doctrines, ordering her to pay a 480-euro ($547) fine, plus costs. The ruling was later upheld by an Austrian appeals court.

The ECHR said the Austrian court’s decision “served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace.”

Putting aside whether what she is saying is true or false, she has been fined and her fine upheld for "disparaging religious doctrines." The fuck? It's illegal to criticize the religious practices of others? Does this mean Europeans can't disparage the Church of Scientology? That they'll be fined for calling Catholic priests "child fuckers"? That they can't openly criticize Sharia law? The fuck is going on here?

That one is kind of dumb I'll grant you and I don't agree with it. In the UK at least the laws are generally against "hate speech" - ie if it's reasonable to assume it would incite people to violence. A bit nebulous and open to abuse but there you go.

Generally though I find the American "we have freedom of speech and you guys don't!" ridiculous. I mean you guys have libel/slander laws same as we do for example - those ban saying certain things. I doubt someone on the streets of New York advocating for joining Isis is gonna go unmolested by the authorities either, even though they're just speaking. We all agree that freedom of speech is not absolute, different countries just differ on the details. At least Europe isn't in denial about it and doesn't pretend it has absolute freedom of speech.

In the case of the Austrians specifically, the western powers did spend a long time following the war running an extensive propaganda campaign to persuade them and the Germans how monstrous the Nazi discrimination was and the slippery slope from hateful rhetoric to worse. I'd be unsurprised if that's had an impact on how the modern day Autrian establishment reacts to hate speech.